Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
leftysergeant said:
No totally steel-framed building was ever smacked with a 100-ton hammer travelling 400+ mph and set afire, either.

Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

The plane weighed one three-hundredth of one percent the weight of the building. Not only that the weight was spread out over an area not that much less than the width and depth of the building with much of the aluminium being only one-twenty fifth of an inch thick...

Some hammer..
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
No steel-framed hi-rise building in the recorded history iof the Planet Earth has ever collapsed from fire despite some spectacular blazes that totally eclipse the small localised fires of 9/11. No building other than the three steel-framed hi-rise buildings on 9/11 that is..
Click to expand...

Sometime is always the first time.

Never before in recorded Histery did man fly in a man made construction, still that didnt prevent the Wright Brothers from taking of.
 
leftysergeant said:
...
2. Steel buildings without adequate protection over the steel are notorius for collapsing in fires.
...
Click to expand...

You ought to guard against open flanks in the argument.

Removed fire protection was important in the twin towers, but IIRC did not play a role in WTC7.

The rest of your points of course are valid and important and damning to the CTers.


I would like to add: While it was determined that the damage to the structural elements suffered by the crashing of debris into WTC7, though extensive, was neither responsible for collapse initiation nor instrumental in collapse propagation, it remains true that without that debris crashing into building 7 we would not have seen a collapse. That crashing did two things that sealed its fate:
a) Start fires by hurling burning debris inside the building.
b) Rip open large gashes and smash a lot of windows, thus opening the structure to take in lots of fresh air - a factor that probably (I don't have a citation for this off the top of my head) greatly helped the fires along.
 
DC said:
Sometime is always the first time.

Never before in recorded Histery did man fly in a man made construction, still that didnt prevent the Wright Brothers from taking of.
Click to expand...

Every time i see you make a sane, rational, intelligent comment like this, it makes it hard for me to believe that a few years ago we were on opposite sides of this argument, and you were a full on truther. Well done, DC.

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
No steel-framed hi-rise building in the recorded history iof the Planet Earth has ever collapsed from fire despite some spectacular blazes that totally eclipse the small localised fires of 9/11. No building other than the three steel-framed hi-rise buildings on 9/11 that is..
Click to expand...

Der. THose other fires that you mention, weren't those structures concrete and steel? I de believe so.....
 
bill smith said:
The plane weighed one three-hundredth of one percent the weight of the building. Not only that the weight was spread out over an area not that much less than the width and depth of the building with much of the aluminium being only one-twenty fifth of an inch thick...

Some hammer..
Click to expand...

Explain bullets.....der.
 
Oystein said:
b) Rip open large gashes and smash a lot of windows, thus opening the structure to take in lots of fresh air - a factor that probably (I don't have a citation for this off the top of my head) greatly helped the fires along.
Click to expand...

I hardly see how you can do that sort of mechanical damage without dislodginmg a lot of fire resistant foam. It was really quite frangible.

This would, even if only over a small area, cause the structural elements to become heated, thus to creep, in a rather hap-hazzard fashion.

I'm guessing that would add at least a bit to the distorsion of the entire structure.
 
bill smith said:
No steel-framed hi-rise building in the recorded history of the Planet Earth has ever collapsed from thermite-induced controlled demolitions despite some spectacular mythbusters fire and ice experiments using thermite. No building, not even the three steel-framed hi-rise buildings on 9/11 that is..
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
DC said:
Sometime is always the first time.

Never before in recorded Histery did man fly in a man made construction, still that didnt prevent the Wright Brothers from taking of.
Click to expand...

Were you really a full-on Truther like TAM says DC ?
 
leftysergeant said:
I hardly see how you can do that sort of mechanical damage without dislodginmg a lot of fire resistant foam. It was really quite frangible.

This would, even if only over a small area, cause the structural elements to become heated, thus to creep, in a rather hap-hazzard fashion.

I'm guessing that would add at least a bit to the distorsion of the entire structure.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that is a guess, and not the result of any in-depth scientific investigation.
The fatal failure occurred in an area that was most likely not hit by debris, and quite likely had its fireproofing intact.
The way I read NIST, they are saying that total collapse would have happend after the collapse of column 79 even if the rest of the strcuture had not been damaged by debris impact.
 
bill smith said:
No steel-framed hi-rise building in the recorded history of the Planet Earth has ever collapsed from fire despite some spectacular blazes that totally eclipse the small localised fires of 9/11. No building other than the three steel-framed hi-rise buildings on 9/11 that is..
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not that fat snob Rosie O'Donnell?
 
Oystein said:
It would really help if people stopped responding particularly to Bill Smith.
Click to expand...

Well now hold on there... I think it entirely fair that I pull Grizzly up on his very bad behaviour above. Unless you think that kind of thing is okay of course..?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
And that WTC7 just fell down like NIST says ?
Click to expand...

NIST came up with the best explanation. Best documented evidence presented, especially when one compares to what the diverse CT Theories presented as evidence, supporting their hypothesis of a CD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom